Thread: Is the Catholic Church a threat to family values?

Originally Posted by RDK

...

However there are also a large number of people who also practice a different sexual norm. These are the Catholic priests and nuns. The priests take vows of celibacy which is unnatural and different from the practices of the majority of the people and the nuns consider themselves to be “married” to Jesus. How normal can it be to consider yourself married to some guy who has been dead for almost 2,000 years? And since there are many nuns who consider themselves to be brides of Christ is that not polygamy?

Why don't you report your local convent to the authorities and see where that gets you.

Obviously, when they speak of "marriage" in this way they are referring to their total devotion to Jesus. See, e.g.:

Celibacy is really a special way of conforming oneself to Christ's own way of life. This choice has first and foremost a nuptial meaning; it is a profound identification with the heart of Christ the Bridegroom who gives his life for his Bride. In continuity with the great ecclesial tradition, with the Second Vatican Council (76) and with my predecessors in the papacy, (77) I reaffirm the beauty and the importance of a priestly life lived in celibacy as a sign expressing total and exclusive devotion to Christ, to the Church and to the Kingdom of God, and I therefore confirm that it remains obligatory in the Latin tradition. Priestly celibacy lived with maturity, joy and dedication is an immense blessing for the Church and for society itself.

-- Pope Benedict XVI (Vatican: the Holy See

Someone who has chosen a religous vocation has made the choice to accept Holy Orders instead of Marriage. Thus, they may say things like "I am married to the Church" or "I am married to Christ" to indicate their choice to forego marriage and totally devote their lives to Christ and His Church. They certainly do not see themselves as sexual partners of Jesus. The very idea is laughable.

Originally Posted by RDK

So my question is that if gay sexual practices are a threat to family values because they are different than the practices of the majority of the people why are not the sexual abstinences practiced by the Catholic priests and nuns not also considered a threat to family values because they are also differenet from the norm?

A fair question. I offer for the consumption of the members the priestly view (and it really is their decision):

It is true that for the agnostic world, the world in which God does not enter, celibacy is a great scandal, because it shows exactly that God is considered and experienced as reality. With the eschatological dimension of celibacy, the future world of God enters into the reality of our time. And should this disappear!?
In a certain sense, this continuous criticism against celibacy may surprise in a time when it is becoming increasingly fashionable not to get married. But this not-getting married is something totally, fundamentally different from celibacy. The avoidance of marriage is based on a will to live only for oneself, of not accepting any definitive tie, to have the life of every moment in full autonomy, to decide at any time what to do, what to take from life; and therefore a "no" to the bond, a "no" to definitiveness, to have life for oneself alone. While celibacy is just the opposite: it is a definitive "yes". It is to let oneself be taken in the hand of God, to give oneself into the hands of the Lord, into his "I". And therefore, it is an act of loyalty and trust, an act that also implies the fidelity of marriage. It is the opposite of this "no", of this autonomy that accepts no obligations, which will not enter into a bond. It is the definitive "yes" that supposes, confirms the definitive "yes" of marriage. And this marriage is the biblical form, a natural way of being man and woman, the foundation of the great Christian culture, of great cultures around the world. And if that disappears, the root of our culture will be destroyed. So celibacy confirms the "yes" of marriage with its "yes" to the future world.

-- Pope Benect XVI (Vatican: the Holy See

Originally Posted by RDK

This is not a Catholic bashing thread.

One of the rationales for people being against gays and gay marriage is that the gay lifestyle is somehow a threat to family values (whatever the expression “family values” means). This is based because the sexual practices of gays are considered to be unnatural because it is different from the normal sexual practices of the majority of the population.

However there are also a large number of people who also practice a different sexual norm. These are the Catholic priests and nuns. The priests take vows of celibacy which is unnatural and different from the practices of the majority of the people and the nuns consider themselves to be “married” to Jesus. How normal can it be to consider yourself married to some guy who has been dead for almost 2,000 years? And since there are many nuns who consider themselves to be brides of Christ is that not polygamy?

So my question is that if gay sexual practices are a threat to family values because they are different than the practices of the majority of the people why are not the sexual abstinences practiced by the Catholic priests and nuns not also considered a threat to family values because they are also differenet from the norm?

(Notice that I never mentioned the pedophile practices that have gotten some media coverage of late, that is because I recognize that this comprises a very small segment of the priest population and the real issue is the poor response of the Church to the issue once individual priests were discovered to be abusing children.)

I would say no, simply because there is no set definition of "family values". There are probably as many definitions of "family values" as there are families.

While there are many Catholic values I do not agree with, my family's values are not threatened in any way by theirs.

Matt

No, they're no more a threat to people that are married than are married homosexuals or unmarried heteros that live together.

People should mind their own business.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

....

While there are many Catholic values I do not agree with, my family's values are not threatened in any way by theirs.

Matt

Why then do so many people feel threatened by the homosexual lifestyle and values but not the Catholic priesthood lifestyle and values?

Both are outside the mainstream and if anything the Catholic priesthood works harder at converting people to their way of thinking more so than does the homosexual community.

My question comes down to why are some practices that differ from the norm considered a threat to family values when some are not?

I really do not see a threat by homosexual ‘lifestyles’ to my family any more than I see a threat to my family by the Catholic priesthood’s lifestyle.

Originally Posted by RDK

This is not a Catholic bashing thread.

One of the rationales for people being against gays and gay marriage is that the gay lifestyle is somehow a threat to family values (whatever the expression “family values” means). This is based because the sexual practices of gays are considered to be unnatural because it is different from the normal sexual practices of the majority of the population.

However there are also a large number of people who also practice a different sexual norm. These are the Catholic priests and nuns. The priests take vows of celibacy which is unnatural and different from the practices of the majority of the people and the nuns consider themselves to be “married” to Jesus. How normal can it be to consider yourself married to some guy who has been dead for almost 2,000 years? And since there are many nuns who consider themselves to be brides of Christ is that not polygamy?

So my question is that if gay sexual practices are a threat to family values because they are different than the practices of the majority of the people why are not the sexual abstinences practiced by the Catholic priests and nuns not also considered a threat to family values because they are also differenet from the norm?

(Notice that I never mentioned the pedophile practices that have gotten some media coverage of late, that is because I recognize that this comprises a very small segment of the priest population and the real issue is the poor response of the Church to the issue once individual priests were discovered to be abusing children.)

I think that gayness is a morality issue. I don't think celibacy is. Although neither contributes to maintaining the basic building block of human society, i.e. the traditional family unit.

I think morality is nothing more than collective human wisdom, acquired by human intelligence over a long time period. Intelligence noticed that particular actions contributed to the disorder and breakdown of human societies. And since human survival was heightened by this group dynamic, i.e. a group is more apt to survive than a single entity, morality or social rules arose to mazimize order, thereby maintaining a group's cohesiveness and increasing the odds of groups staying together. So, I think morality arose in reaction to certain actions that tend to create disorder within groups.

It seems to me that the further one gets away from traditional morality, you see an increase in social ills, that weaken societies. As people discard religion, they also tend to discard the morality that they associate with religion, while not realizing that morality probably did not originate from religion but rather morality originated from the pragmatic. An ancient attempt at maximizing ORDER and minimizing chaos. Which does seem to work better than not.

From an objective point of view, anything that would somehow weaken or hurt the basic building block of society, the creator of order, the purveyor of values and morality, SHOULD be immoral IMO. Not that we should punish people who are sexually immoral, but certainly not to give immorality a blessing. It would be in the best interest of society to treat it the way we traditionally treated homosexuality. Relegate it to the class of adulterers and other like sins. Don't punish it, but for heaven's sake, don't institutionalize it!

We are like children who test the bounds of the glue that holds societies together. We fail to see that morality was a long time in coming, and that it arose from intelligence acting...intelligent.

Gays are born gay I think. Instead of trying to make this an institution, we should be seeking a cure. Better living through modern chemistry or genetic research. The last thing we should do is to sanction immoral behavior. And if the immoral person gets his feelings hurt, well that's the price one pays for being immoral. I think too many of us have lost our own morality, and just go with the flow.

I always applauded the Catholic Church for its stand on divorce. I think we need to go back to the pre JFK era laws regarding divorce. Make divorce really hard to get, and bring back some god damned personal responsibility that benefits the nuclear family unit and creates stability in society. We have become so fucking self centered that we will even drop our family like a hot potato as we run after other self centered interests. This creates social ills that have huge ramifications for society and civilization itself. Which by the way, we learned eons ago.

Originally Posted by RDK

However there are also a large number of people who also practice a different sexual norm. These are the Catholic priests and nuns. The priests take vows of celibacy which is unnatural and different from the practices of the majority of the people and the nuns consider themselves to be “married” to Jesus. How normal can it be to consider yourself married to some guy who has been dead for almost 2,000 years? And since there are many nuns who consider themselves to be brides of Christ is that not polygamy

Wow.

You're really out there.

The fact of the matter is that neither is a threat to family values...

Originally Posted by Steve

Wow.

You're really out there.

The fact of the matter is that neither is a threat to family values...

That being my point.

Originally Posted by RDK

That being my point.

Actually, that wasn't your point, because you never said that neither one was a threat. All you did was try to say "Well, if this is bad, why isn't that?"

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

......


Gays are born gay I think. Instead of trying to make this an institution, we should be seeking a cure. Better living through modern chemistry or genetic research. ......

Blacks are born black. Are you looking for a cure?

Society has to adapt to change. Change is the only constant. Is it somehow better for society to force people to live in marriages that have failed? The failure can be due to mutual hatred, abuse or any number of other issues, why force people to stay in a bad marriage?

Personally I like the old stand-up routine where the joke was that rather than marriages costing a few dollars and divorce being expensive, make a marriage license cost a few thousand dollars and divorce cheap. That way people would not make the commitment unless they were serious.

Morality for you is only what you think morality is. I believe that it is immoral for someone to interfere with another person’s personal life choices as long as these choices do not have significant impact on any other person’s life choices.

Gays fit into the definition of people whose actions have no effect on me and therefore are people who can do whatever they want in their own privacy.

By this definition your opposition to homosexuality is immoral.

Originally Posted by RDK

Both are outside the mainstream and if anything the Catholic priesthood works harder at converting people to their way of thinking more so than does the homosexual community.

Do you have any evidence to support this ridiculous statement? Last time I checked, Catholic priests weren't trying to convert people to celibacy. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by countryboy

Do you have any evidence to support this ridiculous statement? Last time I checked, Catholic priests weren't trying to convert people to celibacy. :rolleyes:

so they don't recruit priests and nuns? :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by reality

so they don't recruit priests and nuns? :rolleyes:

No actually, I don't think they do actively "recruit" priests and nuns. It is considered more of a calling afaik.

Originally Posted by countryboy

No actually, I don't think they do actively "recruit" priests and nuns. It is considered more of a calling afaik.

BS. they recruit those they find suitable to follow orders. whether those orders be for the greater good or not